Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The Revolution-Invasion Problem

I think it's true for everyone that we sometimes find ourselves thinking that someone else (or a groups of others) is in some respect inferior because they can't understand something we can (or think we can). When this happens, the attitude can smear into a larger negative view of the other person (or people) causing what I like to call a superiority complex.

When this happens to an extreme level and involves large number of other people, the term arrogance comes into play and produces a corresponding negative view of self-declared superior person by everyone else. This, I think, is a type of balancing effect that we humans deploy in order to support a sense of equality most of us find appropriate.

In a much larger sense, however, the concept balance is what can cause everything from small arguments to large scale wars. In the attempt to maintain balance, these actions are often called revolutions or revolts. But conflicts can also be caused by the self-declaring superior party thinking they somehow have implicit permission to take detrimental actions against others as a way to try and make sure those seen as inferior don't begin to think they aren't. These actions might broadly be called invasions.

So, it seems that we can find a motivation for conflict in seemingly opposite conditions; one being the attempt at balance and equality (revolutions), the other being the attempt at maintaining some type of superiority (invasions).

This sometimes makes me think we'll never achieve a permanent peace as the pendulum swings back and forth between these opposing motivations for conflict.

No comments: